Yeah, I think its dangerous terminology and is probably misused a lot anyway.maybe even then I would be careful of using the term "gold standard".
Yeah, I think its dangerous terminology and is probably misused a lot anyway.maybe even then I would be careful of using the term "gold standard".
Officially, a theory that is not verifiable or falsifiable is not a theory in the (natural) scientific sense, at least according to Karl Popper.
I think he originally thought CFS was just a variant of depression, but conceded later that that it was not.I don't think he's ever conceded one point or admitted one error.
You are more accurate with the numbersI admit that was a bit propaganda from my side.
![]()
At least here they don't take that too axactly.I have never suffered from depression or had to be treated for it, so I can't speak to that.
But I do have ME. And being told that what I need is a treatment which may be effective for dealing with trauma, childhood emotional abuse, phobias or depression annoys me greatly. I do not want my illness to be wrongly categorised just so that "they" (the government, the medical profession, health insurance companies, DWP, certain territory-grabbing psychologists of the BPS variety) can say they have an effective treatment for it, because ME sufferers being forced to go along with their fiction, sometimes to the detriment of their health and under threat of sanctions, is an appalling situation that has gone on for too long. It has also delayed the search for real treatments for ME.
I am "here" - I have been living in Germany for the last 25 years. I know ME sufferers who have accepted a diagnosis of depression just to get half a pension - if they carry on insisting they are not depressed and have a physical illness called ME, they get no money. As they are too ill to work, the money runs out and in the end they say "ok, I'm depressed, can I have some money for food now".At least here they don't take that too axactly.![]()
I think you meant "hee hee"?Hihi!![]()
I am "here" - I have been living in Germany for the last 25 years. I know ME sufferers who have accepted a diagnosis of depression just to get half a pension - if they carry on insisting they are not depressed and have a physical illness called ME, they get no money. As they are too ill to work, the money runs out and in the end they say "ok, I'm depressed, can I have some money for food now".
The concept of gold standard is a study that best controls for bias and error. It can still be wrong, have other biases, or be fraudulent.Science is an "approximation process to reality" in small steps.
However when CBT is forced on someone with a legitimate mental illness and all the positive logical thought fails to regulate mood or calm anxiety…It is basically causing their self esteem to crumble. If simple positive thought and logic cured mental illness, none of us would bother with pills and therapy. No one would ever need a shrink or meds or hospitalization.
Making someone with a mental illness believe that they can “think” themselves out of a depression or manic episode or panic attacks is borderline negligent as well as defeating the purpose and cruel.
Falk Leichsenring, DSc and Christiane Steinert, PhD
The authors hightlight several problematic points:
- Limited Study Quality
- Weak Empirical Tests
- Uncontrolled Researcher Allegiance
- Central Mechanisms of Change Not Corroborated
- Limited Efficacy
- No Clear Evidence of Superior Efficacy
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1001/jama.2017.13737
Although we agree that outcome research may have limitations and must be appropriately interpreted, the authors’ arguments are unconvincing for at least 4 reasons.
Third, the methodological issues mentioned by the authors are in no way inherent or limited to CBT research. It remains to be seen how other approaches perform in the so-called “weak empirical tests” that CBT has been subjected to so far.
The term gold standard is not meant to describe a treatment or assessment that is known to be far superior to all possible known alternatives and for all time.5 Instead, it applies to a practice that appears to be best supported by the currently available evidence. With this context, it is appropriate to consider CBTs the gold standard psychotherapy.
Not available. Could this be the same article?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2654783
Same with antidepressants and depression, they work because they are chemical crutches, not because they treat mythical biochemical imbalances.
Not to say I know what depression actually is.
The biggest problem with cognitive therapies remains identifying when there actually is a behavioral element, which can't reliably be tested for. Those probably make a trivial percentage of what is commonly labeled as mental health issues and no one can tell the difference anyway, even compared to severe chronic diseases. It even appears that the "experts" actually fare worse, since they consider almost everything, including most medical symptoms, to be behavioral.In the few high-quality studies available for depressive and anxiety disorders, CBT was found to be less efficacious than in low-quality studies, mostly reducing the efficacy of CBT in panic disorder and social anxiety disorder.